Patient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteMay 22, 2012 · Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funding Announcement: Improving Healthcare Systems Published May 22, 2012

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funding Announcement: Improving Healthcare Systems Published May 22, 2012

Key Dates

Action Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III**

PFA Release Date May 22, 2012 N/A N/A

Online System Opening Date June 1, 2012 September 15, 2012 January 15, 2013

Letter of Intent* (LOI) Due Date

June 15, 2012 October 15, 2012 February 15, 2013

Informational Webinars (Specific dates to be posted on pcori.org.)

June and July 2012 October – November 2012

February – March 2013

Application Deadline July 31, 2012 November 30, 2012 March 31, 2013

Merit Review Dates August – November 2012

December 2012 – March 2013

April – July 2013

Awards Announced December 31, 2012 April 2013 August 2013

Earliest Start Date January 2013 May 2013 September 2013

Funding Announcement: Improving Healthcare Systems

2

Opportunity Snapshot A small health plan faces an important challenge to improve the quality and patient-centeredness of care

for its enrollees. Resources are limited and the leaders want to make wise decisions that will lead to

interventions that improve the effectiveness, safety, timeliness, equity, and efficiency of care—and certainly

to more patient-centered care. They have heard and read many reports of successful interventions in other

systems, but most of these have not been rigorously evaluated, and they have not been compared with each

another. They are interested in the impact of programs on a variety of patient-centered outcomes, and they

wonder whether particular interventions could work for organizations and patient populations similar to

theirs.

Purpose Every day, healthcare organizations are faced with crucial decisions about improving their systems of care

and a lack of critical information to guide them. The research they need should be designed to help them

provide better care to the patients in their organization, effectively and efficiently.

We at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are entrusted by the public to fund

research that will matter to patients and their caregivers, and we now turn to you to help us. We have

identified five national priorities and a research agenda that guide the projects we will fund. The agenda is

focused on producing knowledge that is useful to patients, their caregivers and clinicians, and others who

can affect their care. We believe that the important gaps in knowledge are widespread. Rather than dictate

which conditions and questions are more important than others, we have chosen to seek wisdom from

around the country in the form of applications for funding in the five priority areas. We also have identified

some areas, such as rare conditions, that are often neglected and that we want to be sure to cover among

our funded projects.

In this PCORI Funding Announcement (PFA), we seek to fund projects that address critical decisions that

face healthcare system leaders and policymakers, clinicians, and the patients and caregivers who rely on

them. These decisions must be consequential, be occurring now without key evidence about the

comparative effectiveness of two or more approaches, and there must be substantial potential that

patients/caregivers will benefit from the new knowledge in ways that are important. The premise of this

research is that new knowledge will support critical choices by patients and other key stakeholders in

health care, not that it will deliver a verdict that leads us to dictate a choice. This knowledge will provide

insight about the comparative benefits and harms of the options and provide information about outcomes

that are experienced by patients and important to patients.

We are seeking to change a paradigm, to replace the traditional research model—which places the

researcher at the center of the process—with one that involves strong teams with varying perspectives,

finding ways to work together to understand and address patient needs. In the end, PCORI will judge itself

and those it funded by whether this model succeeds in producing knowledge that patients need—and does

so more efficiently and rapidly. We hope that you—patients, caregivers, clinicians, health plans, product

manufacturers, policy makers, and researchers from around the country—will join us in producing an

unprecedented portfolio of truly patient-centered outcomes research that will transform the ability of


3

patients, their caregivers, and clinicians to seek, find, and use practical information in the decision-making

process.

Funds Available We anticipate that approximately 27 contracts totaling up to $24 million in total costs may be funded under

this PFA in this initial funding cycle, assuming receipt of a sufficient number of high quality applications.

PCORI anticipates additional funding cycles related to this announcement. However, funds available may

vary, and PCORI reserves the right to modify or terminate this announcement at any time.

Budget and Project Periods Direct project costs are limited to a maximum of $500,000 per year.

Organizational Eligibility Applications may be submitted by any private sector research organization, including non-profit and for-

profit organizations, any public sector research organization, universities, colleges, hospitals, laboratories,

healthcare systems, and units of state and local governments. All US applicant organizations must be

recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Foreign organizations and nondomestic components of

organizations based in the United States may apply, as long as there is demonstrable benefit to the US

healthcare system and US efforts in the area of patient-centered research can be clearly shown. Individuals

may not apply. Foreign organizations should consult the PCORI Application Guidelines because there is an

extra step for such organizations to register within the PCORI online system.


4

Table of Contents Opportunity Snapshot.............................................................................................................................2

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Funds Available .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Budget and Project Periods ........................................................................................................................ 3

Organizational Eligibility ............................................................................................................................. 3

Step 1: Review Program Detail ................................................................................................................5

Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Research Areas of Interest ......................................................................................................................... 6

Background ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Definition of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research ................................................................................. 9

Example Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Deadlines and Submission ....................................................................................................................... 11

Funding and Project Period Limits ........................................................................................................... 11

Step 2: Consider the Requirements ....................................................................................................... 12

Organizational Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 12

Characteristics of PCORI-Funded Research ……………………………………………………..………………………………… 12

Patient and Stakeholder Involvement ..................................................................................................... 14

Dissemination and Implementation Assessment..................................................................................... 14

Reproducible and Transparent Research ................................................................................................. 15

Inclusiveness of Different Populations..................................................................................................... 15

Protection of Human Subjects ................................................................................................................. 15

Step 3: Develop Your Application .......................................................................................................... 15

Step 4: Know the Review Criteria .......................................................................................................... 15

Step 5: Submit Your Application ............................................................................................................ 16

PCORI Review Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 17


5

Improving Healthcare Systems If you are interested in applying for an award under this program, follow PCORI’s five-step process.

Review the Program Detail: Get familiar with the program announcement and PCORI’s areas of

interest. Look at the example questions.

Consider the Requirements: Consider the applicant eligibility requirements and PCORI’s specific

requirements to see if your organization, your interests, and your project fit within this program.

Develop Your Application: Design the project. Determine and document who will be involved, the

research strategy, and the budget needs. To see the Application Guidelines, go to

http://www.pcori.org/assets/PFAguidelines.pdf.

Know the Review Criteria: Understand the PCORI merit-review assessment criteria. The criteria are

provided at the end of this document.

Submit Your Application: Compile and submit your application. To see the Application Guidelines go

to http://www.pcori.org/assets/PFAguidelines.pdf. You can register for the online system and

submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) or an application beginning June 1, 2012. A link to the online system

will be available on the PCORI Funding Announcements (PFAs) web page at

http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/pfa/.

Step 1: Review Program Detail Overview We are soliciting comparative outcomes studies of strategies (eg, policies, interventions,

service designs) employed by healthcare systems to improve the quality of care, the outcomes

of care, or the efficiency of care for the patients they serve. Healthcare systems include health plans;

physician groups; hospitals; academic medical centers; integrated delivery systems; community-based and

safety net clinics; federal, state, and municipal providers and payers; and other entities organized to

deliver, arrange, or coordinate healthcare services. PCORI seeks studies that will provide information of

value to patients, their caregivers, and clinicians, as well as to healthcare leaders and decision makers on

http://www.pcori.org/assets/PFAguidelines.pdf


http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/pfa/


6

which types of systems and which system strategies lead to better patient outcomes. More recent and less-

studied system strategies are of particular interest.

Research Areas of Interest We are interested in the following broad topical areas:

Research that compares alternative system-level approaches to supporting and improving patient

access to care; receipt of appropriate evidence-based care; the quality, timeliness, and safety of

the patient care experience; decision-making based on patients’ personal values; and self-care.

Research that compares alternative approaches to models of care delivery or coordination of care

across healthcare services or settings, including care for patients with complex, chronic, and/or

multiple conditions, are of interest. The emphasis is on

comparing approaches for their effect on patients and,

when relevant, their caregivers, in ways that they

experience and think are important.

Research that compares alternative system-level

approaches that aim to improve the efficiency of health

care delivery to patient populations. These may include

efforts to reduce the use of ineffective or wasteful care, to

reduce redundant and duplicative care, to shorten waiting

times, or enhance the timeliness and quality of

communications during referrals and transitions in care.

Strategies of interest include, but are not limited to, novel

applications of health information systems, including electronic

health records, patient systems, and personal health records; the

use of incentives directed at clinicians or patients; of payment

reforms such as value-based purchasing and bundled payments;

reconfigurations (redesign) of care, such as the patient-centered

medical home and accountable care organizations; models of

care coordination and integration; organizational decision-

making protocols to guide care referral and specialized

assessment of patients with specific complex conditions; and new

and extended roles for allied health professionals (eg, pharmacists, nurses, physician assistants, dentists,

chiropractors, complementary and alternative medicine providers, patient navigators, health coaches,

social and service coordinators , volunteers, etc.).

Strategies may focus on patient or system enrollee populations with a single condition or with a range of

conditions. Systems strategies to support or improve care for patients with rare conditions are of interest.

Rare diseases are defined as life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases that are of such low

prevalence in populations that special efforts, such as combining data across large populations, may be

needed to address them. The term low prevalence is defined as meaning conditions that affect fewer than

200,000 individuals in the United States or have a prevalence of less than 1 in 1,500 persons.

I have a patient who has a knee problem and, by chance, went to a chiropractor and was there for four sessions; and now she is normal. She was in need of knee surgery, and now she isn’t.

—Cardiologist

I think every single day I've taken somebody off a brand name drug and put them on a generic. Yesterday I took somebody off three brand name drugs and put him on generics because he was paying $95 co-payments on them. He said, “I can't do it. My son lost his job. I spent my retirement trying to keep them afloat. I don't have any money.”

—Primary care physician

If the primary care is not talking to his cardiologist, then what good is it to the patient? We’re kind of talking around each other and doing the same task over and over and over.

—Primary care physician


7

Background A healthcare system is characterized by the organization of people and resources to deliver services to

meet the health needs of target populations. Systems may be publicly or privately organized. Systems are

often evaluated in terms of their ability to deliver accessible, high quality, efficient, and equitable care.

Governmental policies and market forces motivate health systems to improve these parameters, and these

pressures in turn help to shape the clinical, organizational, workforce, and financing decisions made by

systems. Importantly, the demographic and clinical characteristics of the populations served and the scope

and mission of the organization also have strong influences on each of these system-level metrics by

altering the access, patterns of use, and effectiveness of various health services. Over the past two decades,

the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and others have sharpened the focus on ensuring that systems are also

designed and oriented toward achieving the health outcomes most desired by individual patients—that is,

to become more patient-centered.

Innovation and change in healthcare systems and in the behavior of health system actors (patients,

caregivers, clinicians, payers, purchasers, industry, researchers, and policy makers) is often driven by

economic, political, and social needs to improve access to care or quality of care, to attract patients or

enrollees, and to contain costs. In recent times, rising healthcare costs, demographic trends, and the

implementation of the Affordable Care Act have been important catalysts to many new approaches to

change how healthcare systems respond to the current and expected future health needs of the US

population.

Healthcare systems interventions, however, are often initiated and adopted without robust evaluation of

their impact on the health and well-being of the population—especially of more vulnerable patients within

populations, such as the elderly, disabled, low-income patients, and those with multiple chronic illnesses. In

the IOM’s 2009 recommendations for initial priorities for comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER),

nearly half of the 100 priorities identified related to healthcare delivery systems, underscoring uncertainty

on what constitutes best practice and a collective appreciation of the critical role of systems in

implementing clinical evidence and improving care.

The importance of integrated care models, such as the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and

accountable care organizations (ACOs), for improving system performance and patient outcomes has been

widely discussed, but understanding of the impact of these new models remains underdeveloped. As an

example, while elements of the PCMH have been associated with improved outcomes and care processes,

there is relatively little evidence to date on the impact of implementing comprehensive PCMH interventions

on outcomes that matter to patients. New payment models, such as bundled payments, are also being

adopted as strategies for delivery reform, but their impact on patient care and outcomes remains unclear.

The consolidation of physician practices by hospitals and the integration of health insurers and providers,

most notably hospital operators, have begun to alter the organizational landscape, again with little

information on the impact to patients or clinicians.

Other system-level interventions have focused on helping patients and clinicians make more appropriate

decisions. Performance measurement is widely used to enhance implementation and adherence to

evidence-based guidelines. New tools are emerging, such as clinical and patient decision support systems


8

that address both of these goals. The overall effectiveness of these tools as implemented within healthcare

systems, and particularly for patient populations such as those with limited English language proficiency or

education, is less well understood. Use of patient navigators has been shown to have promising effects in

relatively limited applications, such as cancer screening, but could have promise in multiple therapeutic

areas. A variety of system-level interventions have focused on the important goal of improving patient

adherence to chronic medications, but most have had limited effects on clinical outcomes and have not

measured more patient-centered outcomes.

To improve access to health care and the match of skills with patient needs, new and expanded roles for

allied health professionals are increasingly being developed and refined within systems. The roles of nurse

practitioners (NPs) or physician’s assistants in providing primary and limited specialty care, and the role of

pharmacists and other allied health professionals in care management and adherence counseling, deserve

greater scrutiny with a particular emphasis on outcomes that matter to patients, including symptom

management; self-efficacy; satisfaction; physical, emotional, and social functioning; as well as biometric

measures of risk factor control; adherence; and clinical endpoints, including survival.

Other important trends in recent years include more sophisticated use of systems and technology, such as

electronic health records, personal health records, web-based applications, and other forms of digital

communication for enhancing both efficiency and effectiveness in delivering information to patients and

clinicians about evidence-based care for their conditions, including chronic and multiple conditions. Each of

these deserves further study, especially when interventions have been taken to scale within healthcare

systems.

Many system-level concerns require better understanding of the relationship between the organization and

delivery of care within the system and the circumstances, characteristics, and values of the patient. For

example, reducing unplanned and inappropriate hospital readmissions has importance to patients and

families, as well as potential economic impact, and studying the effects of structured, individualized

discharge planning on outcomes that patients care about is needed, along with a broader understanding of

other contributors to readmission. Similarly, identifying and reducing the factors within health systems that

contribute to patients’ development of disability or chronic conditions may significantly improve the lives of

patients and their families. System interventions to deliver evidence-based practices, such as substance

abuse or depression screening, or other early or supportive interventions (screening, coaching, navigation,

coordination, management, knowledge sharing, and activation) to prevent or slow progression of

conditions and to understand their impact on outcomes important to patients is lacking.

The emergence and continued expansion of retail clinics and other “retail” and “self-service” modes of

healthcare delivery, such as home diagnostics, has received very little attention, despite concerns that

these interventions may have mixed consequences, perhaps especially for populations lacking adequate

alternatives, such as access to traditional primary care.

With respect to all of the interventions outlined above, concerns remain that effectiveness may vary among

population subgroups. Among the groups of particular concern are patients with multiple chronic

conditions; the disabled; frail elderly; patients with low literacy, numeracy, or health literacy; and those of


9

low income, including the dually eligible (Medicare/Medicaid); and rural populations. Research in this area

has typically been less focused on outcomes that may be of great interest to patients, such as enhancing

their confidence and ability to navigate the healthcare system, ability to maintain functioning in the home,

and productivity.

Definition of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research PCORI has defined patient-centered outcomes research, posted the definition for public comment, and

incorporated these comments into the revised definition. Applications for research projects to PCORI must

align with this definition, which is provided here and available at www.pcori.org/what-we-do/pcor/.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) helps people and their caregivers communicate and make

informed health care decisions, allowing their voices to be heard in assessing the value of health care

options. This research answers patient-centered questions such as:

1. “Given my personal characteristics, conditions and preferences, what should I expect will happen to me?”

2. “What are my options and what are the potential benefits and harms of those options?”

3. “What can I do to improve the outcomes that are most important to me?”

4. “How can clinicians and the care delivery systems they work in help me make the best decisions about my health and healthcare?”

To answer these questions, PCOR:

Assesses the benefits and harms of preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, palliative, or health delivery system interventions to inform decision making, highlighting comparisons and outcomes that matter to people;

Is inclusive of an individual’s preferences, autonomy and needs, focusing on outcomes that people notice and care about such as survival, function, symptoms, and health related quality of life;

Incorporates a wide variety of settings and diversity of participants to address individual differences and barriers to implementation and dissemination; and

Investigates (or may investigate) optimizing outcomes while addressing burden to individuals, availability of services, technology, and personnel, and other stakeholder perspectives.

Example Questions The following research questions are meant as examples of the types of questions that patients, clinicians,

or healthcare managers might ask, and which your research might help answer. They are expressed from

the perspective of the patient and healthcare system. The list is by no means exhaustive.

A 27-year-old man with diabetes, chronic back pain, and depression has been invited by his

public hospital-based clinic to participate in a group visit program for patients with chronic

conditions led by a behavioral care specialist and a health educator. How likely is it that he will

benefit from this program compared to the current care offered, and what is the nature of the

benefit?

http://www.pcori.org/what-we-do/pcor/


10

A 32-year-old metal fabricator is being encouraged by her employer to consider switching to a

health plan that will cost less per month in terms of premiums, but have high deductibles and

more copayments. Considering her personal situation, preferences, and concerns, what are the

possible benefits and risks of the competing choices, and which makes most sense for her?

A 47-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis has learned that her primary care doctor

recently joined a large medical group affiliated with the community hospital. The previously

freestanding office has become part of the system’s patient-centered medical home, with a

switch from paper records to the hospital’s electronic health record and the addition of several

new staff members, who sometimes call to discuss health issues. What should this woman know

about the potential benefits or possible risks of this new way of primary care practice compared

to her current or other care approaches?

An 84-year-old woman with several chronic diseases is having increasing difficulties managing at

home alone, but does not want to leave her home or neighborhood for a nursing home. What

are the benefits and drawbacks of different programs or services that might help her stay at

home and remain independent safely?

An elderly man has been hospitalized four times in the past year for congestive heart failure.

One challenge seems to be related to delays and poor communication during the transition from

the hospital back to the primary care doctor. What could the hospital and primary care physician

do to help this man reduce his chances of being hospitalized again?

A world-class athlete has been advised by her sports medicine physicians that she needs

arthroplasty in each knee. She is referred to a group of orthopedic surgeons and a hospital that

are part of an accountable care organization. How will this organizational model impact her

care, and what information about the ACO should she know to determine whether they will be

likely to honor her strong preference for treatment that will return her to maximal function as

quickly as possible?

A 60-year-old man with end-stage renal disease is considering peritoneal home dialysis rather

than hemodialysis to avoid transportation and having to miss so much work. What resources,

including telemonitoring or home visits by allied health personnel, might his medical center

employ to support him in safely performing his dialysis?

A 32-year-old uninsured single father and his 8-year-old daughter receive their primary and

urgent care through a community health clinic. He wonders what impact (benefits and risks) the

clinic’s extensive use of cross-trained community health workers has on their care.

Deadlines and Submission This is a standing announcement, with three application deadlines per year. For this initial round, applicants

must submit a Letter of Intent to PCORI no later than 5:00 PM EST on the due date shown in the Key Dates

table via PCORI’s online system (www.pcori.org). Full applications must be submitted to PCORI no later than

5:00 PM EST on the due date shown in the Key Dates table via the PCORI online system.


11

Key Dates

Action Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III**

PFA Release Date May 22, 2012 N/A N/A

Online System Opening Date June 1, 2012 September 15, 2012 January 15, 2013

Letter of Intent* (LOI) Due Date

June 15, 2012 October 15, 2012 February 15, 2013

Informational Webinars (Specific dates to be posted on pcori.org.)

June and July 2012 October – November 2012

February – March 2013

Application Deadline July 31, 2012 November 30, 2012 March 31, 2013

Merit Review Dates August – November 2012

December 2012 – March 2013

April – July 2013

Awards Announced December 31, 2012 April 2013 August 2013

Earliest Start Date January 2013 May 2013 September 2013

*Letter of Intent is required to submit an application. **Subsequent cycles are also expected. Check PCORI’s website for future submission dates. Details within these announcements may change. Please check the date of the PFA you are reviewing and the PCORI website (www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/) to be sure you have the most recent version.

Funding and Project Period Limits We expect to fund approximately 27 projects totaling up to $24 million in total costs under this PFA.

Because the nature and scope of the proposed research is expected to vary widely from application to

application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary.

Projects may not exceed three years in duration. Budgets may not exceed $500,000 in direct costs per year.

It is expected that, within these limitations, project budgets and duration will vary substantially, depending

on the study design, needs for recruitment and/or primary data collection, required length of follow-up,

and analytic complexity. To that end, PCORI will reserve a portion of funding for smaller (less than $500,000

in total costs) and intermediate sized projects (less than $1 million in total costs). PCORI encourages studies

that can deliver findings promptly, including studies that take advantage of research infrastructure already

in place and of longitudinal studies already underway. Currently funded CER studies may be considered for

PCORI funding to support distinctive work related to extending follow-up, adding additional outcomes, or

examining outcomes in key patient subgroups. Efficient use of research resources is a criterion that will be

considered by merit reviewers and will also be reviewed by PCORI staff. The total amount awarded and the

number of awards will depend on the quality, duration, and costs of the applications received.

http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/


12

Applicants wishing to propose prospective randomized trials or other complex studies that they believe will

require more funding or longer duration may contact PCORI before the required deadline for the Letter of

Intent to request permission to increase the budget beyond $500,000 in direct costs in any project year or

to extend the study duration beyond three years. PCORI does not guarantee that permission will be

granted, and applicants should expect that the deliberative process may result in delaying the submission

for one or more cycles.

Step 2: Consider the Requirements Now that you understand the research focus and priorities, you will need to determine if

your organization and approach meet PCORI’s other eligibility requirements. To do that,

please consider the following important issues.

Organizational Eligibility Applications may be submitted by any private sector research organization, including non-profit and for-

profit organizations, or any public sector research organization, universities, colleges, hospitals,

laboratories, healthcare systems, and units of state and local governments. All US applicant organizations

must be recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Foreign organizations and nondomestic components

of organizations based in the United States may apply, as long as there is demonstrable benefit to the US

healthcare system and US efforts in the area of patient-centered research can be clearly shown. Individuals

may not apply. Foreign organizations should consult the PCORI Application Guidelines because there is an

extra step for such organizations to register within the PCORI online system.

Characteristics of PCORI-Funded Research Successful applicants for PCORI funds must:

1. Have a research team that includes patients and/or caregivers, as well as clinicians, health system

managers, or other potential end-users of the study findings, along with researchers—each

contributing the expertise that they have and participating actively in the design and

implementation of the study and the dissemination of its results. A key concept here is ensuring

that the research remains true to the interests of those who would use it.

2. Be familiar with the four questions of our patient-centered outcomes research definition. These

questions articulate the needs of people as they make health care decisions. Applicants must

clearly explain how their proposed research aligns with one or more of these questions.

3. Demonstrate that the proposed research question and project has the potential to provide truly

important information that patients need to make decisions but that is not currently available.

Think about what kind of information patients, clinicians, or health systems need to effect

interventions and changes that will bring us closer to the elimination of these disparities—and for

an effort that makes it feasible to be adopted widely. What information would make the biggest

difference to those who seek this change?


13

4. Propose to use PCORI resources efficiently in producing new knowledge. We aim to stretch our

resources as far as possible because we recognize the vast information needs of patients. We are

looking for approaches that are highly efficient without sacrificing methodological rigor. We are

also interested in the potential for findings to be applied in multiple areas, independent of the

disease studied.

5. Make clear how you are accounting for individual differences among patients and patient groups.

Average results are useful, but we are also very interested in providing evidence that can be

tailored to patient subgroups and individuals based on their clinical and demographic

characteristics. We want products of the research that are scalable and generalizable—and can be

customized for sites. We recognize that there are challenges in seeking evidence at these levels, but

we hope that many applications will seek to provide insights about how individual patients may

make use of the products of the research.

PCORI is interested in research that can be rapidly disseminated and implemented into clinical and

community settings, yielding prompt improvements in patients’ decisions and the outcomes experienced.

To that end, projects of shorter duration and projects that take advantage of existing research

infrastructure and data are of great interest. Applications must include a dissemination and implementation

plan that discusses prospects for dissemination and considers possible barriers as well. For projects that

produce important findings deserving dissemination, PCORI will consider subsequent applications that

evaluate additional dissemination and implementation efforts.

A variety of study designs and analytic methods may contribute valid new knowledge. These include

evidence syntheses, randomized comparisons at either the individual or cluster level, or various

observational approaches (eg, quasi-experimental studies). Qualitative methods may also be employed,

either in mixed methods approaches or, potentially, as qualitative comparative studies. Evidence syntheses

should follow rigorous standards accepted in the field, such as those published by the Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) or the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Issues of possible

heterogeneity of treatment effects must be considered and discussed. Any planned analyses of

subpopulations should be discussed. Inclusion of previously understudied population groups, including the

elderly, children (if appropriate), and vulnerable populations, is particularly important. Randomized

evaluations must be generalizable either by virtue of considering entire populations or by efficiently

recruiting highly representative study populations rather than selected volunteers. Observational

comparisons must employ study designs and analytic methods that convincingly protect against selection

bias and other threats to validity. Applicants should specifically discuss the need to measure factors such as

differential adherence to chosen treatments that could create apparent differences in effectiveness in

clinical populations. Regardless of the particular methods employed, proposals are expected to use rigorous

methodology. Applicants are encouraged to refer to the contents of the PCORI draft Methodology Report,

to be posted on June 4, 2012 at http://www.pcori.org/what-we-do/methodology, in developing their

research plan. Because the draft report will not have been finalized with the benefit of public comment

before the July 31, 2012 application deadline, adherence to the Report’s standards will not be a required

element of applications for this funding cycle. Adherence to the finalized Methodology standards will be

required in future funding cycles.

http://www.pcori.org/what-we-do/methodology


14

Comparisons must be to relevant alternatives, which may include other interventions or clinical strategies

designed to treat the same need, or to “usual care,” or in some instances to no therapy. The research will

ideally provide information about the range of outcomes that are experienced by and important to

patients. These outcomes may include quality of life, ability to participate in desired activities, degree of

suffering from pain or other symptoms, ability to live independently, and satisfaction with health care.

Comparisons should examine the impact of the strategies in various subpopulations with attention to the

possibilities that the effects of the strategy might differ across various populations. Populations of interest

include those that are less frequently studied (eg, the elderly; children, if appropriate; patients with

multiple chronic conditions; patients with rare conditions) and other vulnerable populations, including

those of low socioeconomic status, low literacy and/or numeracy, and patients groups known to experience

disparities in health care and outcomes, such as racial/ethnic minorities. Alternatively, the study may focus

primarily on comparative effectiveness of strategies for prevention, treatment, screening, diagnosis, or

management in one or more of these populations of interest.

Please note that your application will be scored against the eight PCORI review criteria found at the end of

this document.

Patient and Stakeholder Involvement A key goal of patient engagement in research is to present information that best supports health decisions

through generation of evidence relevant to patients, their caregivers, and clinicians. Patients and other key

stakeholders should be meaningfully involved in the research team. The specific members of the team will

vary from study to study.

Research proposals should clearly identify the relevant patient population and the health decisions that will

be affected by the research. Persons representative of the population of interest, referred to here as

patients, their caregivers, and clinicians, should be engaged in all phases of the research process. Patients

may include individuals who have or had the condition or who are at risk of the condition under study; it

may include patient surrogates or caregivers as well. Clinicians who face these decisions in collaboration

with their patients are also relevant team members. Engagement should include participation in

formulation of research questions; defining essential characteristics of study participants, comparators, and

outcomes; monitoring of study conduct and progress; and dissemination of research results.

Details of the required plan for patient and stakeholder engagement are in the Application Guidelines

(http://www.pcori.org/assets/PFAguidelines.pdf).

Dissemination and Implementation Assessment PCORI is interested in funding studies that produce findings that can be readily disseminated and

implemented—and are highly likely to be valued by patients and caregivers. To that end, it is important that

potential facilitators and barriers to dissemination and incorporation into practice be assessed and

anticipated. Applicants must provide a dissemination and implementation assessment as described in the

PCORI Application Guidelines (http://www.pcori.org/assets/PFAguidelines.pdf).




15

Reproducible and Transparent Research The ability to replicate potentially important findings from PCORI-funded studies in other datasets and

populations is essential to building confidence in the accuracy of these findings. To that end, we will

support policies to promote sharing of study documentation (eg, study protocol, programming code, data

definitions) so that other researchers may replicate the findings in other populations. For large studies—

those with direct costs greater than $500,000 in any year—we will also require that applicants propose a

plan for sharing of de-identified data, so that results may be reproduced by others in the same dataset.

Whether data sharing is ultimately requested will depend on study findings and the availability of funds to

support the process. Details of both requirements are in the Application Guidelines


Inclusiveness of Different Populations PCORI seeks to fund research that includes diverse populations with respect to age, gender, race, ethnicity,

geography, or clinical status. PCORI recognizes that some proposed studies may represent important PCOR

opportunities even in the absence of a broadly diverse population. However, the burden is on the applicant

in such cases to justify the importance of the study given the absence of diversity. Alternatively, PCORI is

interested in the inclusion of previously understudied populations for whom effectiveness information is

particularly needed, such as ““hard-to-reach”” populations or patients with multiple conditions.

Protection of Human Subjects PCORI adopts, by reference, the Human Subjects requirements of 45 CFR Part 46.

Step 3: Develop Your Application There are three main parts of designing your project: (1) defining your research question

and research strategy, including the study population and analytic approach; (2) describing

the people who will comprise your research team and the institutions, organizations, and locations that will

be involved; and (3) determining the budget. To better understand each of these steps and to find and

complete the application forms, please see the PCORI Application Guidelines


Step 4: Know the Review Criteria It is PCORI’s goal to make its funding decisions in a way that best supports our mission of

improving patient-centered outcomes and in the most fair and transparent way possible.

Below is an overview of PCORI’s review and decision-making process.

The PCORI review process includes four stages:

Completeness, Compliance, and Eligibility Check

Merit Review

PCORI Deliberations

Business Review




16

You should carefully read and thoroughly understand the PCORI review criteria, at the end of this

document, before applying.

Step 5: Submit Your Application To apply with PCORI, you must register with PCORI’s online system and submit both a timely

Letter of Intent and a timely application. To learn more about the application process, go to

the Application Guidelines at http://www.pcori.org/assets/PFAguidelines.pdf.



17

PCORI Review Criteria

PCORI Criteria Brief Description

RESEARCH STRATEGY: Background and Significance

1. Impact of the condition on the health of individuals and populations

Refers to the current impact of the condition on the health of individuals and

populations. Is the condition or disease associated with a significant burden in the US

population, in terms of prevalence, mortality, morbidity, individual suffering, or loss of

productivity? A particular emphasis is on patients with chronic conditions, including

those patients with multiple chronic conditions.

2. Innovation and potential for improvement

Refers to the potential that the proposed research may lead to meaningful

improvement in patient health, well-being, or quality of care. Is the research novel or

innovative in its methods or approach, in the population being studied, or in the

intervention being evaluated, in ways that make it likely to change practice? Does the

research question address a critical gap in current knowledge as noted in systematic

reviews, guidelines development efforts, or previous research prioritizations? Has it

been identified as important by patient, caregiver, or clinician groups? Do wide

variations in practice patterns suggest current clinical uncertainty? Do preliminary

studies indicate potential for a sizeable benefit of the intervention relative to current

practice? How likely is it that positive findings could be disseminated quickly to effect

changes in current practice?

3. Impact on health care performance

Refers to the potential that the proposed research could lead to improvements in the

efficiency of care for individual patients or for a population of patients. Does the

research promise potential improvements in convenience or elimination of wasted

resources, while maintaining or improving patient outcomes?

RESEARCH STRATEGY: Relevance to Patients

4. Patient-centeredness Is the proposed research focused on questions and outcomes of specific interest to

patients and their caregivers? Does the research address one or more of the key

questions mentioned in PCORI’s definition of patient-centered outcomes research? Is

the absence of any particularly important outcomes discussed?

RESEARCH STRATEGY: Approach

5. Rigorous research methods

Refers to the use of appropriate and rigorous research methods to generate patient-

centered evidence, including appropriate choice of study design and of analytic

methods. How likely is it that the proposed study population, study design, and

available sample size will yield unbiased, generalizable information with sufficient

precision to be useful and reliable for patients, their caregivers, and clinicians

RESEARCH STRATEGY: Inclusiveness of Different Populations

6. Inclusiveness of Does the proposed study include a diverse population with respect to age, gender, race,


18

PCORI Criteria Brief Description

RESEARCH STRATEGY: Background and Significance

different populations ethnicity, geography, or clinical status? Alternatively, does it include a previously

understudied population for whom effectiveness information is particularly needed?

Does the study have other characteristics that will provide insight into a more

personalized approach to decision-making based on a patient’s unique biological,

clinical, or sociodemographic characteristics.

PEOPLE AND PLACES

7. Research Team and Environment

The research team must be appropriately trained and experienced to carry out the

planned studies. Does the study team have complementary and integrated research

expertise in implementing the study? Are relevant patients and other key users of the

study information (eg, caregivers, clinicians, health system, community, or policy

makers) appropriately included on the team? Will the research environment contribute

to the probability of success? Are features of the research environment, such as health

system or community involvement or collaborative arrangements, described? Are

institutional and community investment in the success of the research described?

BUDGET

8. Efficient use of research resources

Does the budget appear to be reasonable in relation to the potential contribution of the

research? Does the justification address the efficiency with which PCORI resources

would be used? Are there opportunities to make the study more efficient? Are there

additional benefits to a PCORI investment in this study through the creation of common

data or infrastructure that could support future research?


19

About PCORI

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is an independent organization

created to help people make informed health care decisions and improve health care delivery.

PCORI will commission research that is guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader healthcare

community and will produce high integrity, evidence-based information.

PCORI is committed to transparency and a rigorous stakeholder-driven process that emphasizes

patient engagement. PCORI will use a variety of forums and public comment periods to obtain

public input throughout its work.

Our Mission: PCORI helps people make informed health care decisions and improves health care

delivery and outcomes by producing and promoting high integrity, evidence-based information

that comes from research guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader healt care community.

Our History: PCORI was created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as a

non-profit, nongovernmental organization. PCORI’s purpose, as defined by the law, is to help

patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers make better informed health decisions by

“advancing the quality and relevance of evidence about how to prevent, diagnose, treat, monitor,

and manage diseases, disorders, and other health conditions.”

The statutory language defining PCORI is broad and authorizes research that will support a strong

patient-centered orientation, inform better choices among alternative treatment and prevention

strategies, and direct attention to individual and system differences that may influence strategies

and outcomes. PCORI was designed to produce knowledge through the analysis and synthesis of

existing research or the support of new research.

Documents

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteMay 22, 2012 · Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funding Announcement: Improving Healthcare Systems Published May 22, 2012